Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 9 10 [11]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Has Canon fallen hopelessly behind? (cross-posted)  (Read 37466 times)
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 711


« Reply #200 on: May 04, 2012, 06:49:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I thought we'd got beyond the DXO weighted and biased scores. Hasn't that been the cause of so much distrust and disbelief in DXO results?

It's the overall score that's weighted, not the individual scores, of which DR is one. The DR results are also backed up by other independent tests.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #201 on: May 04, 2012, 08:35:24 AM »
ReplyReply

It's the overall score that's weighted, not the individual scores, of which DR is one. The DR results are also backed up by other independent tests.

Individual DR scores are always rated at specific ISOs. These are general DR scores judged to be appropriate for landscape photography. One presumes they are at base ISO. Also, I wouldn't consider the APS-C format to be best for landscape. For landscape photography, the Nikon D3x was the first Nikon full-frame that could exceed the Canon full-frame models in terms of both resolution and DR at base ISO. The D3x is a fairly recent model. The 5D3 beats the D3X in terms of DR above ISO 800, but this fact would not be reflected in a DXO Landscape score, even though there will be occasions when a high ISO may be required to freeze movement in a landscape shot.
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #202 on: May 04, 2012, 08:56:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Individual DR scores are always rated at specific ISOs. These are general DR scores judged to be appropriate for landscape photography. One presumes they are at base ISO. Also, I wouldn't consider the APS-C format to be best for landscape. For landscape photography, the Nikon D3x was the first Nikon full-frame that could exceed the Canon full-frame models in terms of both resolution and DR at base ISO. The D3x is a fairly recent model. The 5D3 beats the D3X in terms of DR above ISO 800, but this fact would not be reflected in a DXO Landscape score, even though there will be occasions when a high ISO may be required to freeze movement in a landscape shot.

All Canon cameras have shadow banding though, so Canon dynamic range is overstated if you want to avoid lifting those artifacts out of the shadows.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #203 on: May 04, 2012, 09:47:06 AM »
ReplyReply

All Canon cameras have shadow banding though, so Canon dynamic range is overstated if you want to avoid lifting those artifacts out of the shadows.

I've always found in practice that the point where banding becomes objectionable, as with my 5D, is also the point where noise in general is objectionable and image degradation unacceptable. Someone once offered me a process of removing such banding, but I didn't feel there was much point. The advantage of a camera that boasts 14 EV dynamic range is that 12 stops of DR may be usable, whereas in the original 5D which, from memory, has about 11 stops of DR, only 9 would be usable, and the banding in the 9th stop would probably not be noticeable.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1712


« Reply #204 on: May 04, 2012, 12:35:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I thought we'd got beyond the DXO weighted and biased scores. Hasn't that been the cause of so much distrust and disbelief in DXO results?
My point was that Sony/Nikon seems to be doing DR at base ISO better than Canon at the moment. It is my impression that this is a consensus among those that try to estimate DR, not only DXO.

As a Canon user, I hope that Canon will be able/willing to supply my invested lenses with a competitive sensor (=at least as good as the competition) when time comes to swap my 7D.
 
-h
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #205 on: May 04, 2012, 06:22:27 PM »
ReplyReply

My point was that Sony/Nikon seems to be doing DR at base ISO better than Canon at the moment. It is my impression that this is a consensus among those that try to estimate DR, not only DXO.

As a Canon user, I hope that Canon will be able/willing to supply my invested lenses with a competitive sensor (=at least as good as the competition) when time comes to swap my 7D.
 
-h


No doubt about it, but the graph gives the impression that Nikon has had a lead in cameras for landscape purposes since 2006 when in fact it is Canon which has had the lead until 2010 in the type of camera which would be considered more suitable for landscape purposes, that is full-frame.

Prior to the introduction of the D3X just a couple of years ago, a 5D2 could reasonably have been considered a better option for landscape purposes, than any Nikon offering, because of the the 5D2's significantly higher pixel count (21mp as opposed to 12mp) and at least equal DR at base ISO.

Right now, there is no doubt that the D800 excels all other FF models in terms of base DR and over all resolution, the two factors considered important for landscapes.

However, if you were going on a trip next week to shoot landscapes, you probably wouldn't get your hands on a D800, they're in such short supply. Your options amongst the two brands might be either a second-hand D3X or a brand new 5D3, both at a similar price.

The D3x would have the advantage of better DR at low ISO's, and the 5D3 the advantage of better DR at high ISO, plus of course HD video capability which the D3X lacks.

Just trying to get things in a clear perspective. Canon is not yet a hopeless case.  Grin
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508



WWW
« Reply #206 on: May 05, 2012, 09:04:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm glad my initial post has created such a firestorm of thought. While I feel in reality, Canon still has the technical prowess to be a leader, the fact is it has chosen NOT to lead in the world of still photography. After talking with a number of other photographers, we've all agreed that Canon no longer seems to see the still photographer as it's main focus and domain. Witness the development of the 1D C, and the C300 and C500. What do all these have in common? Professional cinematographers. And in my mind, THAT is where Canon is headed and why it no longer cares as much about the professional STILL photographer.

Nemo
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #207 on: May 05, 2012, 09:15:30 PM »
ReplyReply

While I feel in reality, Canon ... has chosen NOT to lead in the world of still photography. ...  Professional cinematographers ... in my mind, THAT is where Canon is headed and why it no longer cares as much about the professional STILL photographer.
I agree that video and cinematography are getting a lot of attention from Canon, but the 1D X clearly addresses one type of professional still photographer: those interested in speed and action, such as a photojournalist or sports photographer. It is just that Canon is no longer pushing so hard towards "medium format" territory, and is consolidating more on what it did best with its 35mm film SLRs.
Logged
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 539


« Reply #208 on: May 06, 2012, 01:18:29 AM »
ReplyReply

And in my mind, THAT is where Canon is headed and why it no longer cares as much about the professional STILL photographer.
Nemo

I see the Canon cinema cameras only as a sideline and a byproduct form the 5D2 success story. There is no money in cinematography compared to professional and prosumer DSLR market.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 9 10 [11]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad